Still waiting for any meaningful discussion of The Book of Thomas; TICK TOCK. (or is that the point). The last (114) of the book states: Simon Peter
said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she
too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." What is this a
joke; I can see in now on the Colbert Report (breaking news, Jesus secretly a Masogynist and caves to false self chosen apostle/disciple peer
pressure; unfortunately his TRUE peers crucified him).

windword
Personally, I think this relates to reincarnation, and that we incarnated as both male and female before we reach enlightenment, or "gnosis." I
really don't see much difference between the claim that Jesus said this about Mary and about sexual transformation, when so many male Christians
refer to themselves as the "Bride of Christ" by being part of the "church". The "church" that Christians believe that Jesus designated to
Peter, the rock, not James the Just.

Past reincarnations; future certainty. Peter reincarnated as Rosa Parks/Gloria Steinem. Male Christians refer to themselves as "brides of Christ"?
Are you sure you are not speaking of Catholic Nuns instead (really want to go there but wont). Im interpreting The Book of Thomas ONLY, and everyone
is deflecting by throwing around kitchen sinks (irrelevant to OP statement who also refuses to participate) instead of speaking about the contents of
these writings. At least you attempted to explain your thoughts on these two.

windword
The Essenes were often referred to as "Pythagorean Gnostics" and part of their rituals consisted of the gathering assemblies of angels, who, they
claimed ministered to them. Paul hated these people, calling them puffed up and proud and warned others that if the angels contradicted Paul's
words, then they shouldn't be listened to.

They gathered the angelic because they had the tools, namely the Qabalah, some call it Enochian Majick a system of communication that was mutually
satisfactory. The Essenes were persecuted because they held "hidden truths" and were not about to share these with potencially corrupt institutions.
Why would Paul hate them? his own Master walked and studied with them in Qumran as a juvenile, before he joined Joseph of Aramethea to continue his
education. Pythagorean makes sense, they knew enough about natural physics to create artifical light sources using Florite crystal. So Paul put his
importance above and beyond Angelic Beings; distrusted them just enough to believe in them.

The Gnostic Christians sorted people into three categories.
Gnostics, who knew the Gnosis, and would ascend to the highest realm of God, upon death
Ordinary Christians, as well as Gnostics who didn't know the Gnosis, who would be "kicked to the curb" by the Archons and be reincarnated to give
it another go
Everyone else, who would be obliterated upon death

Well, I don’t think it’s as clear cut as all that…as I will try to explain further down

Originally posted by Joecroft
(Christian) Gnosticism – knew and accepted, the standard Christian version of salvation, and also taught a different, higher form of salvation…

Originally posted by adjensen
That is not correct -- they did not accept "the standard Christian version of salvation", which is one life, one death and everlasting life with
Christ in heaven for those who are saved. Rather, they figured that if you didn't get past the Archons, you were tossed back to Earth for another try
at getting it right, and if you failed to, at least, accept Christ, that was the end of it.

I should have worded my last post much better than I did. When I said they accepted the Christian version, I didn’t mean they accepted the Christian
version of Salvation, because of course we know from history, that they clearly did not, But what I meant, was that they accepted them (normal
Christians) as saved IMO. Albeit with a lesser form of salvation, as mentioned by Valentinus.

The thing is, I don’t think this lesser form of Salvation, was referring to the destination of Christian believers, i.e. being reincarnated back on
earth. I believe the Gnostic Christians saw normal Christians, as just as much saved, as they were, and that this lesser form of Salvation, was in
regards to their lack of this secret knowledge. In other words, this lesser form of Salvation still led one to the same place IMO i.e. back to God,
saved etc; but that it was only termed as lesser, because they lacked certain elements of this secret knowledge.

The clear distinction of the Gnostic Christians, was one of knowledge and understanding directly from God, rather than just blindly accepting Dogma
and Doctrine from standard Christianity. This is the main reason why the Gnostic Christians put so much emphasis on being saved, through the message
of Jesus.

And seeing as they knew that most “normal Christians” read and believed in Jesus message too, then it would make sense, that they would also see
them as saved also. One clear indicator of this, is use of the word salvation when being applied to “normal Christians”, and if you consider just
how the Christian Gnostics viewed this world/realm etc, then I seriously doubt, that their use of the word salvation, can be anything to do with
normal Christians, being reincarnated back on earth.

Of course, all this is just my personal view, and take on the subject.

Still waiting for any meaningful discussion of The Book of Thomas; TICK TOCK. (or is that the point). The last (114) of the book states:

As EightBits has pointed out, it is almost universally accepted that 114 is a late addition, late even for the Gnostics -- they were fairly liberal in
their view of women (particularly when compared to the Jewish cultural view,) so there is some speculation that it was added by a non-Gnostic to
discredit Thomas, though I'm not really sure how that would work.

As with saying #1, I can conclusively state that Jesus did not say #114.

I have no idea why anyone would care about the writings attributed to Thomas. They were supposed to be discarded and forgotten (well that didnt
happen). I would imagine the Essenes being gnostic would have another strike against them as they treated all equally, even their own children were
given respect. This is an interesting speculation of yours regarding discredation of Thomas and I cannot see how this would happen--the last thing
wanted would be to bring more attention to the writings themselves if supposed to be neglected to the point of non-rememberance. Seems out of
character for Jesus to say such things, but then again (acting as a closet funnyman) perhaps his disciples missed the irony/joke.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
I have no idea why anyone would care about the writings attributed to Thomas.

I am an historian by training (in part - it was my cognate in graduate school) and I am very interested in early church history, all aspects of it,
and a lot of that circulates around the development of Christian orthodoxy. That's my interest in Thomas, as well as the other non-canonical
texts of the time. They are snapshots of what some people thought about Christ in the centuries that followed his death, and for me, at least, they
are extremely interesting.

They were supposed to be discarded and forgotten (well that didnt happen).

Even though I am an orthodox Christian, I consider the suppression and destruction of these texts by the church to be a tragedy, a crime against
history. These texts testify to the thought, the passion and the dreams of a people whose story deserves to be told. They were wrong, there is no
doubt in my mind, but that doesn't make them any less human, or any less worthy of study.

I would imagine the Essenes being gnostic

Though some speculate about it, the Essenes weren't Gnostics -- they were, for want of a better term, hyper-Jews.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
I have no idea why anyone would care about the writings attributed to Thomas.

adjensen[i/]
I am an historian by training (in part - it was my cognate in graduate school) and I am very interested in early church history, all aspects of it,
and a lot of that circulates around the development of Christian orthodoxy. That's my interest in Thomas, as well as the other non-canonical
texts of the time. They are snapshots of what some people thought about Christ in the centuries that followed his death, and for me, at least, they
are extremely interesting. They were supposed to be discarded and forgotten (well that dint happen).

For me as well. Why certain cannons are not included specifically; the decision making who was in charge intitially of the banning and why? It is not
as if a concerted effort over 300 years of a concentrated effort would have ever come to a conclusion or bereft the total. The fact some still 'exist'
for contemplation intrigues me (and why wouldnt it).

adjensen
Even though I am an orthodox Christian, I consider the suppression and destruction of these texts by the church to be a tragedy, a crime against
history. These texts testify to the thought, the passion and the dreams of a people whose story deserves to be told. They were wrong, there is no
doubt in my mind, but that doesn't make them any less human, or any less worthy of study. Though some speculate about it, the Essenes weren't Gnostics
-- they were, for want of a better term, hyper-Jews.

Well, what does that tell you about 'church methods' and their paranoia. How can you belong to a secularized faith driven panacea and continue to
think all is well that seems to try to end well? You dont question the actions of your cornerstones of an altruistic trust based faith that you know
has (MAYBE) kept knoweledge from you and everyone else that you congregate with in Worship? The Essenes were the closest to the original Gnostics and
in no way Hyper-Jews; the only correlation would be that they spoke the only true form original HEBREW and it was not called that even then, it was
called "angelic language" Coptic involving numbers attached or defining letters that have a completely different connotation as to descriptive
language. Innvocation the rule here.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
The Essenes were the closest to the original Gnostics and in no way Hyper-Jews;

I guess that, in order to proceed, we need to clarify this. What is your source for thinking that the Essenes were Gnostics?

Geez, they wouldn't even have sex except on a Wednesday because they thought it might result in a birth on a Sabbath!

They were so scrupulous regarding the observance of the Sabbath that they refrained from sexual intercourse on all days of the week except
Wednesday, lest in accordance with their singular calculation of the time of pregnancy the birth of a child might take place on a Sabbath and thereby
cause the violation of the sacred day. (Source)

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
The Essenes were the closest to the original Gnostics and in no way Hyper-Jews;

I guess that, in order to proceed, we need to clarify this. What is your source for thinking that the Essenes were Gnostics?

Geez, they wouldn't even have sex except on a Wednesday because they thought it might result in a birth on a Sabbath!

They were so scrupulous regarding the observance of the Sabbath that they refrained from sexual intercourse on all days of the week except
Wednesday, lest in accordance with their singular calculation of the time of pregnancy the birth of a child might take place on a Sabbath and thereby
cause the violation of the sacred day. (Source)

That sounds like hyper-Judaism to me, not Gnosticism.

Sex on a Wednesday; at least it happenned once a week, was there a hole in a sheet involved? This information of yours sounds to me like Morman
ministry. Who is your SOURCE of information because there is something desperately wrong here regarding what you think or know the Essenes were and
the veracity of Moroni.

Oh and of course they cant be both. That would be like calling a Catholic a Christian. The Essenes were Gnostic Coptic Jews; and you get your
information from a Jewish Encyclopeidea? I am going to turn to the Catholic Living Bible to find out about the Essenes, Herod Antipases family, the
fate of Solomons Temple and if need be a prediction of Mohammed being born.

Who spoke original Hebrew? Do not tell me your God speaks this language as it is an amalgamom, the Egyptians existed before the Jew you have Sumarian
Cuniform, Caanonite, Phoenician, early and later Greek, Arabic, Latin. You tell me who invented the language of Hebrew and who spoke it first. Tell
me, was it Enoch and in what time period did he live exactly, who was he conversing with in this language purportedly sacred--God? If all tongues were
divided, which tongue did God choose to very specifically confer its wisdom/wrath (the point to divide by language and geographic location harm/rebuke
the human). Was Hebrew its first choice and why do You think so. Do you not realise this is an insane God you contemplate; will not even divulge
answers to the simplest of questions.

The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום‎) (Yiddish: כתב עברי) is an abjad offshoot of the ancient Semitic
alphabet and closely related to the Phoenician alphabet from which it descends. It dates to the 10th century BCE or earlier. It was used as the main
vehicle for writing the Hebrew language by the Israelites, who would later split into Jews and Samaritans.

It began to fall out of use by the Jews in the 5th century BCE when they adopted the Aramaic alphabet as their writing system for Hebrew, from which
the present Jewish "square-script" Hebrew alphabet descends. The Samaritans, who now number less than one thousand people, continue to use a
derivative of the Old Hebrew alphabet, known as the Samaritan alphabet.

The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום‎) (Yiddish: כתב עברי) is an abjad offshoot of the ancient Semitic
alphabet and closely related to the Phoenician alphabet from which it descends. It dates to the 10th century BCE or earlier. It was used as the main
vehicle for writing the Hebrew language by the Israelites, who would later split into Jews and Samaritans.

It began to fall out of use by the Jews in the 5th century BCE when they adopted the Aramaic alphabet as their writing system for Hebrew, from which
the present Jewish "square-script" Hebrew alphabet descends. The Samaritans, who now number less than one thousand people, continue to use a
derivative of the Old Hebrew alphabet, known as the Samaritan alphabet.

"Paleo-Hebrew". ~ Wiki

Aramaic, what is the problem here? Arabs and Jews disregard themselves as being remotely related Semite peoples (well, yes they are related even
though both in denial). Are you arguing with me or agreeing, at least you mentioned the Phoenician alphabet. Samaritans, where did they come from as
in ancestry. The modern day Iraqi Kurds are the last vestige remnant population of the Sumarian civilization; are you saying Samaritans are Sumarian?
What are the Samaritans, a wandering nomadic tribe of scribes trying to be good? Paleo meaning-----what is it describing.

Where does it come from generationally (what century) and who translated it FIRST would be a good clue as to its origin because there is nothing
better than a bad translation of a good alphabet, novel or BIBLE, Conchi to English? Japanese borrowed it: Chinese characture picture writing
(thousands of years before the birth of Jesus). Maya picture writing is very similar in concept (house on fire drawn) means house on fire. 26 letters
in our Later Greek Latin inspired alphabet, millions of charactures in Conchi. 'Tagahashi' Japanese means the man who lives under the bridge. Tell me
how Hebrew translates, numbers or letters or magickal.

Even though I am an orthodox Christian, I consider the suppression and destruction of these texts by the church to be a tragedy, a crime
against history. These texts testify to the thought, the passion and the dreams of a people whose story deserves to be told. They were wrong, there is
no doubt in my mind, but that doesn't make them any less human, or any less worthy of study.

I don't buy into the "affirmative suppression" theory. Although some texts were destroyed, the main barrier to reliably transmitting a text from a
two-thousand year-old source to us is an unbroken chain of copyists. You don't have to kill the copyists whose work you don't like, you need only
interest them in copying other things. e.g. pay them to copy one thing instead of another. The work of previous copyists will simply crumble into
dust, or even (as happened to some of the Nag Hammadi cache) be used as kindling for kitchen-fires (not "book burnings").

Nag Hammadi apparently reaches us because the texts were disfavored. In response, the codices were hidden, that is physically secured with the
intention of later retrieval. Disfavor also opens a second channel for the survival of defeated manuscripts: copyists are interested in the winners'
skill in exposing dead-end ideas. It is dicey to hear about somebody's ideas only through their critics, but so it will be if defeat is the only
basis of continual interest.

I don't really understand why living Christian apologists buy into the "affirmative suppression" theory, when the "copying is a scarce resource"
theory is very likely to have been what happened. What we have almost certainly lost are the texts and ideas that nobody was much interested in after
the first generation of readers (just like today - who reads most of the "best sellers" of the 1910's, apart from a few great works produced
then?); the outrageous texts, or at least the most outrageous ideas they contain, have a variety of ways to survive.

Few modern scholars went as deeply into Gnosticism as Carl Jung did, and he simply lost interest when he saw that alchemy (Neoplatonism + a
schoolchild's chemistry set) had better developed the same root intuitions. I think Jung's intellectual trajectory is a a microcosm of what happened
in Western thought. People just lost interest when better ideas, and better activities based on the ideas, came along.

Any break in continuity of copying explains the disappearance of ancient text. Loss of interest is what happened to Gnosticism, in my opinion.
The contrast between core Thomas and the accretions tells the tale. To the extent that verse 114 says anything at all, it compares unfavorably
with the telling of the Tiresias myth in the Odyssey. Tiresias had his struggles to reach us, but he did so comfortably enough. Verse 114's
survival is little short of a miracle, that such an artless expression of an unelaborated cliche reached us at all - a lucky graffito.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.